FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-04-2012, 02:36 PM
ashkab rahmani
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:

> On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> > thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
> > but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true?
> >
> > ———
> > Ashkan R
> > On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, "Nux!" <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> >> > hello
> >> > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
> >> > i want to share it on network via nfs.
> >> > which file system is better for it?
> >> > thank you
> >> > ———
> >> > Ashkan R
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > CentOS mailing list
> >> > CentOS@centos.org
> >> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >>
> >> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-)
> >>
> >> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS
> >> and
> >> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> >>
> >> Nux!
> >> www.nux.ro
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CentOS mailing list
> >> CentOS@centos.org
> >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@centos.org
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it
> in some scenarios.
> ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
> testing.
> If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
> preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 02:46 PM
Nux!
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

On 04.08.2012 15:36, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> thank you. very usefull
> i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
> i'll send you btrfs result for you.

Ilsistemista.net seems to have some good articles about filesystems.
e.g.
http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/linux-a-unix/33-btrfs-vs-ext3-vs-ext4-vs-xfs-performance-on-fedora-17.html
Check them out.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 03:21 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

On 08/04/2012 09:36 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> thank you. very usefull
> i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
> i'll send you btrfs result for you.
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>
>> On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
>>> thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
>>> but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true?
>>>
>>>> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
>>>>> hello
>>>>> i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
>>>>> i want to share it on network via nfs.
>>>>> which file system is better for it?
>>>>> thank you
>>>> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-)
>>>>
>>>> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS
>>>> and
>>>> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it
>>>> in some scenarios.
>>>> ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
>>>> testing.
>>>> If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
>>>> preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.
>>>>

Personally, I would use ext4 ... faster is not always better.

As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
like tried and true over experimental.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 03:26 PM
Morten Stevens
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

On 04.08.2012 16:36, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> thank you. very usefull
> i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
> i'll send you btrfs result for you.

Please note: The Btrfs code of CentOS 6.3 is based on kernel 2.6.32.
This is very experimental.

If you want to try Btrfs, then use kernel 3.2 or higher. (there are
thousands of bug fixes and improvements since 2.6.32)

Anyway, I still recommend ext4 or xfs.

Best regards,

Morten
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:

> ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
> testing.
> If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
> preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.

Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.

ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not.

Nux! <nux@li.nux.ro> wrote:

> ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
> testing.
> If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
> preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.

Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.

ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not.

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 04:38 PM
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:

> face the truth!
>
> there is no ZFS for linux
> there will never be
>
> that you do not like GPL, Linux etc. at all will
> not change anything, not now and not in the future

What do you expect from spreading lies against me?

You are off topic, so please stop this nonsense.

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 06:32 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
> ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not

Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your
work in the past, I know you can do better than this.

Regards,

--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 07:32 PM
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:

> On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
> > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
>
> Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
> the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your
> work in the past, I know you can do better than this.

I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.

ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years.

What is the age of BTRFS?

The experience with various filesystems tells that it takes 8-10 years to make
a new filesystem mature.

Also the OP did not ask for CentOS, but for a filesystem comparison.

So comparing filesystems seems to be the question. For ZFS, I know that it
took until three years ago to get rid of nasty bugs. At that time, ZFS was 8.

So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years.

ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need flexible
snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it to
verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem" is
true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the Linux
buffer cache.

And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp patents
are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-)


There are few fs use cases where COW is not the best.

Jrg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jrg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 07:39 PM
Nux!
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

On 04.08.2012 20:32, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
>> > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
> ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need
> flexible
> snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you
> ask it to
> verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS
> "problem" is
> true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of
> the Linux
> buffer cache.
>
> And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp
> patents
> are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-)

Jorg,

Given your expertise then, can you say how mature/stable/usable is ZFS
on Linux, specifically CentOS?
That's what everybody is probably most interested in.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-04-2012, 07:48 PM
ashkab rahmani
 
Default compare zfs xfs and jfs o

thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs??
is it comparable with others??
———
Ashkan R
On Aug 5, 2012 12:02 AM, "Joerg Schilling" <
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> > On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
> > > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
> >
> > Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
> > the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your
> > work in the past, I know you can do better than this.
>
> I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.
>
> ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
> ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years.
>
> What is the age of BTRFS?
>
> The experience with various filesystems tells that it takes 8-10 years to
> make
> a new filesystem mature.
>
> Also the OP did not ask for CentOS, but for a filesystem comparison.
>
> So comparing filesystems seems to be the question. For ZFS, I know that it
> took until three years ago to get rid of nasty bugs. At that time, ZFS was
> 8.
>
> So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years.
>
> ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need
> flexible
> snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it
> to
> verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem"
> is
> true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the
> Linux
> buffer cache.
>
> And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp
> patents
> are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-)
>
>
> There are few fs use cases where COW is not the best.
>
> Jörg
>
> --
> EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
> Berlin
> js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
> joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
> http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org